Mrs. Rajeswari v. P. Srinivasan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 24.04.2019
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE Ms. JUSTICE P.T. ASHA C.R.P(NPD).No.342 of 2016 & C.M.P.No.1785 of 2016 1.Mrs.Rajeswari 2.Mrs.Umasankari
...Petitioners
Vs 1.P.Srinivasan 2.P.Sambandam @ Sambanda Moorthy 3.S.Saravanan 4.S.Karthikeyan 5.Manjula 6.Sathiya 7.Santhi 8.Suriya 9.S.Santhamurthy
10.P.Thamizarasan 11.S.Susila 12.A.Murugan 13.M.Ravichandran 14.S.Ethiraj 15.M.Aashaparveen 16.R.Balaji 17.S.Rajagopal 18.E.Anbarasu 19.D.Pandiyammal 20.K.Kumutha 21.B.Rajendrakumar 22.Sakthivel 23.E.Shivaraj 24.G.Nithiyanandam 25.S.Vijayakumar 26.Mr.Prema 27.G.Vasantha
28.R.Manivannan 29.Mrs.M.Aruna 30.R.Usha 31.V.Renukambal 32.G.Prabu 33.K.Amul 34.M.Ramalingam 35.G.Kumaran 36.R.Sundaresan 37.R.Sridharan 38.S.Anandakumar 39.S.Sathi 40.S.Prabakaran 41.D.Parameshvaran 42.J.Premabai 43.R.Ushabai 44.K.Bharathi 45.V.Selvi
46.K.Uma 47.K.Prema 48.V.Govindarasalu 49.R.Sundaresan 50.R.Ramesh 51.S.Ravikumar 52.S.Bhupathy 53.S.Z.Imdad 54.G.Koteshwari 55.M.Murugan 56.M.R.Subramanian 57.R.Mani 58.Durai Vengatesan 59.M.Govindan 60.M.Raman 61.P.Sundar 62.Mrs.Abinaya ... Respondents
Prayer:Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the plaint docket order dated 12.08.2015 passed in unnumbered O.S.S.R.No.4575 of 2015 on the file of the Principal District Court, Thiruvannamalai. For Petitioners :
Mr.K.G.Vasudevan For Respondents 1 & 2:
Mr.V.Prakash Babu For Respondents 3, 9, 11 to 16, 18, 21, 22, 25, 26, 30, 31, 33, 36, 37, 39, 46 to 51, 54, 58, 60 to 62.
:
No Appearance For Respondents 10, 17, 19, 20, 23, 24, 27 to 29, 32, 34, 35, 38, 40 to 45, 52, 53, 55 to 57 & 59 :
Not ready in Notice
ORDER
The above Civil Revision Petition is filed challenging the rejection of the plaint at the numbering stage on the ground that the prayer has been corrected when the said plaint was returned for certain compliances. The order reads as follows:
"A careful study of the prayer of the Plaintiffs in this plaint would reveal the fact that the Plaintiffs did not mention the Court by which the judgment and decree was passed in O.S.No.173/2002, dated 03.10.2002 and also it reveal that fact that a suit was being filed by the Plaintiff as a fresh case as to decide the matter by this court, which was already decided by a court as admitted by the Plaintiffs themselves in O.S.173/2002 not mentioning the court in which the suit was decided. And also the Other prayers namely the reliefs could be the consequential relief to the relief of first item as mentioned in the plaint itself. Hence the court decided on a considered view that there is not prima fascia case as to decide by this court by taking plaint into file by this court. Because it was the case Of Plaintiffs themselves that the judgment and decree passed in O.S.173 of 2002 without mentioning the court by which the judgment and decree was passed to be declared as not valid in a subsequent suit as mentioned in the plaint. Necessarily it is common prudence that if any suit was
decided by any court as mentioned by the Plaintiffs themselves, an appeal would be preferred if any party is having grievance over the decision of court against the impugned judgment. But curiously, the Plaintiffs herein had filed the suit before this court for setting aside the judgment and decree without mentioning the court by which the judgment and decree was passed. It is pertinent to note down after 'Return' endorsement made as stated above, the prayer in the plaint namely the 1st prayer was modified by using whitener without getting permission of the court, i.e the prayer was altered without following the procedure. Hence, this court with left no option but to reject the plaint herein. Accordingly, the same is rejected." 2.
The concept of amendment as contemplated under the provisions of Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure would come into play when the suit has been taken on file and has been registered then it becomes the property of the Court and any amendment can be affected only by way of a petition seeking to amend the plaint.
where it awaits numbering.
3.The order of the learned Judge stating that the correction has been taken place without the permission of the Court is totally erroneous and the learned Judge has totally misread the provisions of amendment as contemplated under the Code of Civil Procedure. The order in unnumbered O.S.S.R.No.4575 of 2015, on the file of the Principal District Court, Thiruvannamalai is set aside. The learned Judge shall number the suit if it is otherwise in order. The Civil Revision Petition is allowed on the above lines. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently connected Civil Miscellaneous Petition is also closed.
24.04.2019 kan Index : Yes/No Speaking order/non-speaking order To, The Principal District Judge, Thiruvannamalai
P.T.ASHA, J., kan C.R.P(NPD).No.342 of 2016 & C.M.P.No.1785 of 2016 24.04.2019